Monarchism

Post Reply New Topic

This thread is to discuss the relative merits and demerits of monarchism versus other forms of government, primarily liberal representative democracy as that is currently the form of government most in vogue.

I am too tired to post my thoughts right now but will do so later. Please post here rather than in the US election thread as I feel bad about derailing Cyanide's topic.

Ok, you created one of those poll options *just* to sucker me in, didn't you?

But in all seriousness, I think a monarchy would likely be worse than a democracy, and I think democracy sucks. This is because I think a lot of kings would be idiots just for the sake of abusing power. Democracy, at least, is constrained by fear and distrust.

I believe I see AG's vote already. Distrustful of all central authority, regardless of who wields it, aren't you?

Yep, and you posted while I was pointing it out.


It might depend on some other factors in the structure of the government. After all, most monarchs have had to deal with the wishes of an aristocratic elite even if their power was theoretically supreme. But, I need to get to bed so I will post more when I am more rested.

Good night everyone!

Yes, I am. I really don't trust much.

And yeah, and these people will be bound by their own idiocies too I bet.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA[/youtube]


Couldn't resist

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 18 Oct 2008, 4:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ok, to criticize your claims made in another thread:

You expect other people to be enlightened??? I don't expect that, and even if they were, they should not be given that level of power.


Do we need a list of unenlightened dictators from Russia? There weren't the behind end of the world just because of the vodka. I mean, they even allowed themselves to get taken over by Communists!

Hey anyone know why the You tube vid I posted has not worked.

Fixed it

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 18 Oct 2008, 4:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Instinctively I oppose dictatorships. At heart I am a Marxist, and please people do not start yelling that Marxism is a dictatorship because that will just show your ignorance of the subject. I do not hold to the human nature argument that communism cannot work, (Orwell heres your chance to throw my 'delusional' taunts back at me )

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship, maybe some of the examples already given like peter the great ect were not as nasty but they hardly promoted social equality.

I am surprised that someone as vehemently supportive of free speech as Orwell would support the idea.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 18 Oct 2008, 5:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Both have good and bad points. I don't see any political solution as perfect. At least with a democracy you can vote out bad leaders, if you have a bad king / dictator you are usually stuck with them for life or until a bloody revolution overthrows them.
Democracies do sometimes seem weak in as much as they try to please everyone and don't make hard decisions when they need making - just so they don't lose their position in the polls. Democracies also seem to be at the whim of vested interest groups with money too, so aren't exactly corruption free. Money talks.

Years ago I saw an interesting documentary about a dictator in South Korea who dragged his people from being peasant and starving farmers (as North Korea still is) to the thriving modern country it is today. He was ruthless in his ambition for his country. I'm not saying I approved of his methods but was awed with the huge impact he had on the country.

I fear that democracies will not rise to big challenges - for example if global warming is indeed man made (as seems likely) and that the Earth is in danger unless massive changes are made to the way the planet is run, then I fear nobody will vote for such changes until it is too late.

Communism seems to be corrupt and people lack the initiative to improve things.

In summary, no political solution is perfect and I can't endorse any!

There were several other factors going into Russia's backwardness and the eventual revolt. Over their history they had several excellent leaders. Monarchy is by far the most common method of government historically and has an excellent track record.

I would, but Marxism is a whole 'nother can of worms that I would prefer to keep this a fight between monarchism and representative democracy as seen in the modern industrialized world.


It is debatable whether social equality is desirable in all circumstances, or at all, and it could be argued that the general improvements made by such strong leaders were of benefit to everyone.


Autocracy and individual liberty are not incompatible. It is entirely possible to have an autocratic system of government and yet still retain freedom of the press, freedom of motion, etc. Catherine the Great in particular was praised by Karamzin for establishing a very open society with loose censorship; she even permitted people to openly criticize her policies with no repercussions. There were several other examples, such as Frederick II, of monarchs who permitted their subjects a fairly good degree of freedom.

AG, you should know that enlightened despotism refers to a particular style of monarchy that was practiced historically where power was vested in one person but individual rights were upheld and the monarch was considered to be responsible for improving the well-being of their subjects as much as possible. It refers to the application of Enlightenment liberal ideas to monarchical governmental systems.

BTW, DentArthurDent, that video's a gem.

There were other factors, however, the nature of their government was undeniably a factor. Over their history they had some excellent leaders, but they had a lot of non-excellent leaders. Russia is pretty well-known for having ruthless dictators.

That point depends on what we mean by "excellent track record", there are a number of terrible leaders who emerge in most monarchist systems, is that a denial of good leaders? No, but certainly a bad monarch is worse than a bad president.


I know, but the issue is that you cannot trust these people to be "enlightened". I mean, you can say "Oh, persons X, Y, and Z were enlightened", but that hardly means that all despots will be enlightened at all, as it is not as if the enlightened despots were the only despots of the time.

Not only that, but part of my position is that the amount of power that these people have is repugnant in and of itself. I do not care if they can make human lives better, I don't want anyone to have absolute power. I want people to make their own decisions as to how society will work, as if I do not want power exercised over me, I must prevent that power exercised over them. With those rights to their own decisions, I want them to keep those decisions to themselves so that way they don't inflict their stupidity upon others.

What about a computerised leadership/administration, which would process data from all over, about almost everything, and make decisions based on what produces optimum living conditions. Programmed with a central-liberal "take" on what constitutes that optimum.

A computer-monarch. No more voting. But no human with huge amounts of power.

.